Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Interesting comments
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Well here goes - I love a painting to look like a photograph, you have to admire the skill involved to create something so detailed and I would love to be able to do that. I suppose I'm perhaps the only one here who feels like that but art to me is about seeing something and reproducing it so that other people can see exactly what it is. As someone once said "If I have to explain my work then I have failed" or something like that. I've said this before, more than once probably, but I don't 'get' abstracts. I'm not keen on impressionist work either. Oh dear I think I'd better duck now as the bullets will be coming fast!!!
This post has been removed as it violates our forum rules and guidelines.
Posted
Not sure why this thread was dug up given that it's so old, but the comments have been so interesting so I'll bite...
As a relatively young artist who paints abstract but also enjoys what we've called "traditional paintings" here (realism), I think they are both very valid forms, it's just that we (or I) appreciate them in different ways. With traditional paintings, I appreciate the work for the artist's evident skill in replicating a scene/imbuing it with a certain atmosphere. That's a skill that takes years and decades to hone. But I'm actually more drawn to abstract art (and thus the tendency to paint this myself though I've done a fair few portraits and landscapes as well). When executed well, abstract art can be so rewarding in ways that traditional art cannot be. Yes, the market is in no shortage of abstract pieces that look like they were created with very little thought. These hold little appeal for me because as an artist, I value that connection with the viewer, and when something looks harried/ill formulated, it suggests to me that the piece was created more as an indulgence by the artist, a form of self-expression that had little thought of the audience and *their* time and attention on the work.
But when executed well, abstract art is more evocative for me, and the best works I've seen offer a deeper level of engagement with the viewer because they can't just say, "Look, this is a beautiful vase". The viewer has to work a little harder to understand the work, and as creators we have to work hard to depict something that exists yet has no physical form. The most powerful abstract art for me depict emotions in their rawest form, or ideas that we can't quite put into words yet most certainly feel. They have the power to transport to further places you because they're not taking you to some meadows or the seaside, but possibly a different world altogether. When my collectors tell me "this piece speaks to me. I don't know why but it does and I must have it", I know I've succeeded in what I set out to do, which is to have a dialogue with the viewer through art, something that they find themselves responding to immediately. So in short, abstract art is more of a two-way street and that's why it's more appealing to me personally.
Posted
Jane - firstly thank you for digging this one up - I'm about to upset many contributors but the forum has become a bit of a mutal admiration society of late and this is such a refreshing change.
I fully echo your observations about dialogue between artist and purchaser but why do so many want to interpret abstract art in the conventional sense. Why can't they just enjoy it for the beauty of design, composition, and palette and the emotions it can evoke.
Last year for the first time my abstract sales far exceeded my conventional works but sadly this year, thus far, the market has gone flat for all genres but at least it gives me time to experiment and I'm currently playing around with monoprints - abstract of course.
Edited
by Michael Edwards
Posted
Thanks Michael! I think someone else dug up the post (their post has since been deleted; can't say I'm surprised...) and that's how I stumbled upon this thread. Yes, I think good healthy debate always has a place in forums like this alongside words of warm encouragement.
...but why do so many want to interpret abstract art in the conventional sense. Why can't they just enjoy it for the beauty of design, composition, and palette and the emotions it can evoke.I can relate to your point here. There's a discipline required to make abstract moving and beautiful (rather than just provocative or political) and that doesn't quite get the airtime it deserves in my view. Had a look at your work and they're fabulous! Some have such a distinct, magnetic mood about them. Keen to hear what you uncover in your experiments in the weeks to come.
Edited
by Jane Peng
Posted
Not sure why this thread was dug up given that it's so old, but the comments have been so interesting so I'll bite... As a relatively young artist who paints abstract but also enjoys what we've called "traditional paintings" here (realism), I think they are both very valid forms, it's just that we (or I) appreciate them in different ways. With traditional paintings, I appreciate the work for the artist's evident skill in replicating a scene/imbuing it with a certain atmosphere. That's a skill that takes years and decades to hone. But I'm actually more drawn to abstract art (and thus the tendency to paint this myself though I've done a fair few portraits and landscapes as well). When executed well, abstract art can be so rewarding in ways that traditional art cannot be. Yes, the market is in no shortage of abstract pieces that look like they were created with very little thought. These hold little appeal for me because as an artist, I value that connection with the viewer, and when something looks harried/ill formulated, it suggests to me that the piece was created more as an indulgence by the artist, a form of self-expression that had little thought of the audience and *their* time and attention on the work. But when executed well, abstract art is more evocative for me, and the best works I've seen offer a deeper level of engagement with the viewer because they can't just say, "Look, this is a beautiful vase". The viewer has to work a little harder to understand the work, and as creators we have to work hard to depict something that exists yet has no physical form. The most powerful abstract art for me depict emotions in their rawest form, or ideas that we can't quite put into words yet most certainly feel. They have the power to transport to further places you because they're not taking you to some meadows or the seaside, but possibly a different world altogether. When my collectors tell me "this piece speaks to me. I don't know why but it does and I must have it", I know I've succeeded in what I set out to do, which is to have a dialogue with the viewer through art, something that they find themselves responding to immediately. So in short, abstract art is more of a two-way street and that's why it's more appealing to me personally.I agree. Look at Clyfford Still for example. I like to have to respond through a bit of thought and as you have mentioned, an instant gut reaction where you don't quite know why you like it. There has to be thought and composition in all paintings.
Posted
Miscellaneous remarks as a response to this thread. And you're right Michael, but just occasionally something like this comes up.
I’m 71 and I like Ikea; can’t abide big heavy furniture that dominates the room and leaves no space for the people.
I don't object to installations as such but I do think that they have to be very carefully considered with an attention to detail that matches any hyper-realism painting. Too often they seem to be "…we could use that stuff that's been cluttering the shed for two years". During City of Culture, here in Hull, a new gallery—which is actually no more than a bar with some space for pictures and arty stuff—exhibited a number of contemporary installations. They epitomised, for me, the shallowness of almost every installation I’ve ever seen. Thrown together, it appeared, without any real conceptual thinking or concern for detail. A local gallery owner told me that “…you can forget Art’s Council funding if it’s not an installation”.
Photography, as Cartier Bresson said is about the decisive moment whereas painting is a more considered process. That’s why a painting of a photograph always falls flat. There are two large photographs in my local city gallery that I just have to look at every time I go there. They are contemporary street-life portraits and although they have the look of a quick iPhone ’snap’, they are very, very carefully staged. I can read them in a way that I can’t read, for example, a 17C. religious painting because I don’t understand that language and nor do I feel the need to.
The only one of the YBAs that I have ever had any time for is Jenny Saville, probably one of the lesser known of the Saatchi stable and the one who has—I believe—devoted her time to her drawing and painting rather than to celebrity and fame- and glory-seeking. Her paintings can be very disturbing but are also very powerful and very well executed.
Stand outside Range or a similar place with a home decor dept. and watch the (mainly) young couples coming out with the (cheaply) framed prints. They don’t want art, they want something to go on the living room wall. A friend of mine who paints told me that a friend of hers expressed an interest in one of her paintings but asked if she could do it in lilac because they’ve just redecorated. Perhaps the contemporary evolution of this is the proliferation of the Beautiful abstract painting in three minutes videos on YouTube; put some dobs of any colour paint you like on a surface smear it about with a squeegee and Bob’s your uncle, Fanny's your aunt. (And Bob Ross must take some of the blame too).
If I had to explain my work to someone I wouldn’t consider that I had failed. I would likely think that they had not had the same experience as me and that having listened to why I made the work, they might see it differently; if they weren't interested in that, I would consider it no loss. I don’t want to see a painting that imitates photography, I want to see/know how the artist experiences the world in ways that I don’t (or do as the case may be).
Coming from a graphics background, I’ve always been drawn to abstract artwork for its design qualities. One of my favourites has always been Kazimir Malevich’s Eight Red Rectangles, which is nothing more than what the title says. Unlike the YouTube offerings, this work is carefully considered in its simplicity. It has meaning and it has intent.
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2